Would you prefer it if “Five point Calvinism” were true?

[Jipsah]

But if the guy is determined to kill himself, he can just run back into that building again or find some other way to kill himself.

Or he may have been fighting me because he had a shootful of black smoke and his mind wasn't working any too well. Ah, the hell with him, let him burn. Sad words coming from a firefighter.

If somebody does not want to be saved, nothing can stop us from saving him.

The guy who's in the fire knows he wants out, but he may fight the very people trying to save him. The average person doesn't believe there's anything to be saved from, and thus dragging them out of the way of the juggernaut is the only way they'll be saved. How much is "Free Will" worth if all it serves to do is get you fried forever?

God is not into the force saving business.

Citation on that. I see a good many instances in Scripture where God forced people to do what He wanted and they did not. Paul, Jonah, Balaam, Pharoah, many others. Letting people burn forever because He's doesn't want to force anyone is a curious form of love, innit?

If that was the case, then why doesn't God save everyone if that is how salvation works?

Why indeed? Because He can't? Or because He won't? Then again, what if He does? You know, like Omnipotent God's will actually being done, and not being defeated by the vaunted "Free Will" of his sin addled creatures? Nah, better to let the loonies run the asylum, and if they end up destroying themselves, well, that's the biz, baby.

It would seem kind of cruel on God's part to not save all if He is able to force save people.

Ah, the "poor God...' idea. God wants to save everyone, but He just can't. Rubbish, says I.[/quote]

 

[Hmm]

So God can't be trusted with anything this important because He makes His decisions by tossing a coin or using a random number gnerator just how He feels on any given day.

Wow.

How many chambers in God' revolver?

But apparently not trusting His decision making skills at all.

You're questions simply don't relate to anything I actually said so it's difficult to respond.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Or he may have been fighting me because he had a shootful of black smoke and his mind wasn't working any too well. Ah, the hell with him, let him burn. Sad words coming from a firefighter.

This is exactly what Calvinism proposes because God has the power to force save everyone but He chooses to let the majority burn. But in the Bible God allows man to choose, so the blame falls on man and not God.

The guy who's in the fire knows he wants out, but he may fight the very people trying to save him. The average person doesn't believe there's anything to be saved from, and thus dragging them out of the way of the juggernaut is the only way they'll be saved. How much is "Free Will" worth if all it serves to do is get you fried forever?

Uh, you got things confused. If Calvinism is true, then I have to hope and pray I am one of the Elect or chosen by God. This leads most of humanity to be in despair in that they will fry in hell with no say so in the matter in changing their situation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ah, the "poor God...' idea. God wants to save everyone, but He just can't. Rubbish, says I.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God’s messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn’t let me.” (Matthew 23:37) (NLT).

Romans 10:21 KJV
“But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.”

 

[Bible Highlighter]

God is not into the force saving business.

Citation on that.

It's more like a logical deduction based on accepting various truths mentioned in Scripture.

“And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13).

“...I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;” (Deuteronomy 30:19) (NKJV).

In Luke 8, Jesus sets a demon possessed man free and sends the demons into a herd of pigs who then run off a cliff and drawn. Jesus came to proclaim the gospel to this town so that they might believe and be saved (Mark 1:38). But after seeing what happened to this demon possessed man, Luke 8:37 states, “Then all the people of the surrounding country of the Gerasenes asked him to depart from them, for they were seized with great fear. So he got into the boat and returned.”

Jesus knew that without him, all of these people would never have a relationship with his Father. Without him, they would all be doomed forever. He came to save them, but they asked him to leave. So he let them be. Jesus did not force His salvation upon them.

In addition, Jesus told us how two cities (Chorazin and Bethsaida) who did not repent because of Jesus miracles were going to be held more accountable at the judgment than other wicked cities.

“Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. ” (Matthew 11:21-22).

But if God elected people to salvation, then Jesus could have asked the Father to Elect them or to force save them against their will and they would be saved. But that is not what we read. Jesus appears to hold cities accountable for not repenting laying the blame on them for not accepting Him.

I see a good many instances in Scripture where God forced people to do what He wanted and they did not. Paul, Jonah, Balaam, Pharoah, many others.

I don't see where God forced Paul to do anything. The Lord Jesus simply awakened his eyes to His truth, but it was still up to Paul to decide in his next course of actions. Seeing Paul was a man who wanted to serve God, this is why the Lord came to Him and opened his eyes to the truth. It does not mean God forced Paul to be a certain way against Paul's will. We don't see Paul hating God and then all of a sudden he started to love God by the Lord electing Him.

As for Jonah: Well, first, God was not electing Jonah to salvation. Second, Jonah was still not acting in God's will later on when he was angry at the Ninevites. Even when God showed mercy to the Ninevites, Jonah was still angry and God was trying to explain to Jonah his mercy but Jonah was not having it. Also, Jonah was not forced to preach, either. Jonah could have continued to run away, but I am sure he did not want to face something worse from God. But Jonah's will was not changed here.

As for Balaam and Pharaoh:

Surely God can accomplish his will in how he sees fit through rebellious men, but this does not mean that God overrided their free will by any means. God simply operate His will into what He desires despite man's free will choices. These are not examples of where their free will being overriden. God influencing men to do His will is an example where God can at times accomplish His will despite man wanting to rebel and do his own thing. It's not like these men were mind wiped and became mindless puppets to God.

 

[Cormack]

Like Diogenes I search the night looking for one honest man that will at least hate Calvinism for what it actually teaches,

It’s fairly absurd to imply that there isn’t an “honest man” out there who’s representing (and rejecting) Calvinism based upon the teachings of Calvinism.

If Calvinism were UNBIBLICAL, then the debate would have not lasted this long.

That seems kind of unsound. That’s like writing “The Jehovah’s witnesses and the Mormons have biblical backing, it’s not fair to say their views are unbiblical. If they were UNBIBLICAL we wouldn’t still be debating these guys 100 years later.” I’m not sure that’s reasonable at all.

Maybe part of the reason that Calvinism has been around so long is because Calvinists have this unflappable cope mechanism where they insist everyone who doesn’t agree with their theology must not understand it.

 

[Cormack]

Everything we do is totally depraved, so God, by not rewarding us or our despicable behavior is holding us accountable for what we do.

Made so by Gods “Sovereign” decree under Calvinism ^ It’s hard to judge a man for his nature when there’s no such thing as Mother Nature pulling the strings, it’s only Gods plan and purpose.

 

[Cormack]

Who are we to tell God what is right and proper to do?

Under the Calvinistic scheme however it seems as if God himself can’t even tell us what’s right and proper. He exults men and casts others into hell, receiving equal “glory” from each distinct act. Yet one results in forever praise and another won’t. Punishing people for events and sinful deeds God prepared and decreed in eternity past seems like the height of hypocrisy.

 

[Cormack]

Nope, I will not take the bait and YOU CAN’T MAKE ME.
(Get thee behind me, Arminian!)

Are Arminians fit to be likened to Satan? “Get thee behind me, Satan!” Is the reference I assume you were making. Most Christians would be aware of that.

 

[Cormack]

By the way, what was the reason you created this thread?

Lots of reasons, but one of the main reasons is to see what @atpollard insists doesn’t happen, namely people interacting with a belief system on the belief systems own terms. Rejecting (or embracing) Calvinism based upon the actual doctrines, rather than just assuming it’s false and moving on.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So for everyone who isn’t a believer in five point Calvinism, would you prefer it if five point Calvinism were true?

A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.

No.

If the atonement is limited, then the various passages in the scriptures are incorrect. There's no need to ignore scripture to fit a hypothesis where it doesn't fit.

Also no because the focus on total depravity disobeys Paul's instructions in Philippians 4:4-9 and coincidentally has people robbed of their experience of this God of Peace explained in scripture.

Also no because unconditional election can delude people into thinking they're saved based on what they agree with intellectually, which also skirts gnosticism in being saved by what you know instead of Jesus you know through trust.

Also no, because the idea of irresistible grace paints the picture of seduction, when the scripture paints the picture of being born again.

Also no because the perseverance of the saints takes focus away from Jesus who perseveres in keeping us from falling.

And other related reasons of a similar nature.

 

[SkyWriting]

Maybe part of the reason that Calvinism has been around so long is because Calvinists have this unflappable cope mechanism where they insist everyone who doesn’t agree with their theology must not understand it.

I can't think of anybody who does not think that way.
Isn't that the basis for all discussions?

 

[atpollard]

It’s fairly absurd to imply that there isn’t an “honest man” out there who’s representing (and rejecting) Calvinism based upon the teachings of Calvinism.



That seems kind of unsound. That’s like writing “The Jehovah’s witnesses and the Mormons have biblical backing, it’s not fair to say their views are unbiblical. If they were UNBIBLICAL we wouldn’t still be debating these guys 100 years later.” I’m not sure that’s reasonable at all.

Maybe part of the reason that Calvinism has been around so long is because Calvinists have this unflappable cope mechanism where they insist everyone who doesn’t agree with their theology must not understand it.

Hit that dead horse again!
I think I saw it move.

 

[Cormack]

Hit that dead horse again!
I think I saw it move.

What an insightful, relevant response.

 

[Cormack]

I can't think of anybody who does not think that way.
Isn't that the basis for all discussions?

Maybe it’s the basis of all low level, bad faith Internet forum “discussion.” But in other theologies there isn’t this sad trope about people not understanding the object of conversation.

Users might post to each other saying how this person didn’t understand some nuance or that that person missed the point they were driving at, but it’s not the dog and pony show of “you don’t understand Calvinism!”

 

[SkyWriting]

Maybe it’s the basis of all low level, bad faith Internet forum “discussion.” But in other theologies there isn’t this sad trope about people not understanding the object of conversation.

Which you say is judging others?

 

[Cormack]

Which you say is judging others?

If I had said that you’d be writing it in quotations.

No the “object of conversation” is 5 point Calvinism. The 5 points are the TULIP.

It’s in those conversations that we are often treated to the tired “you don’t understand Calvinism” routine.

Of course it’s rare that anyone who embraces or converts into Calvinism is accused of not understanding Calvinism, that honour is saved for people who have reservations.

Again it’s cope. There are lots of honest critics or honest holdouts on all sides of the debate, Calvinists find this hard to believe though, as we see with @atpollard, who’s more worried about optics than relevant responses.

To many Calvinists you are either ignorant or dishonest for not accepting their religion.

 

[SkyWriting]

If I had said that you’d be writing it in quotations.

No the “object of conversation” is 5 point Calvinism. The 5 points are the TULIP.

It’s in those conversations that we are often treated to the tired “you don’t understand Calvinism” routine.

Of course it’s rare that anyone who embraces or converts into Calvinism is accused of not understanding Calvinism, that honour is saved for people who have reservations.

Again it’s cope. There are lots of honest critics or honest holdouts on all sides of the debate, Calvinists find this hard to believe though, as we see with @atpollard, who’s more worried about optics than relevant responses.

To many Calvinists you are either ignorant or dishonest for not accepting their religion.

I've not studied Calvin or tulips.

 

[atpollard]

Again it’s cope. There are lots of honest critics or honest holdouts on all sides of the debate, Calvinists find this hard to believe though, as we see with @atpollard, who’s more worried about optics than relevant responses.

I offered a relevant response to this topic at the start. You cherry picked it to win debate points by dragging me into a false narrative. Now you continue to mention me as a poster boy for your strawman narrative which carefully avoids the critical core issue of the biblicity of the Doctrines of Grace.

As stated in my initial post, I am not part of the target group for this topic as narrowly defined in the OP.

So Merry Christmas and leave me out of your monologue.

 

[SkyWriting]

So Merry Christmas and leave me out of your monologue.

And have a happy Satan's day.